Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1vtkll wrote

NYCHA was most definitely not a nice place to live in the 1980s.

As to the 1970s, NYCHA basically didn't let non-whites, people on welfare, single mothers, even those who didn't have furniture move in until 1968. It was an extremely selective application process that enabled it to be so successful and when that policy changed tenants staged rent strikes. Somehow I don't think bringing those policies back would be very popular. They were also much newer buildings back then so maintenance work was simpler and not as frequent.

NYCHA spent nearly $600 million to repair the Red Hook Houses after Sandy. That is an insane sum given there are only 3000 residents and those repairs are just to make it livable again, not substantially improve those buildings which still sit in a flood zone.

As the OC pointed out, $40BB is needed to just fix all the current issues at NYCHA and that number will likely only grow. I think the city and taxpayers really needs to consider whether that sum is worth it for substandard dwellings.

11

139_LENOX t1_j1vy7cs wrote

Tearing down or privatizing public housing are not realistic solutions when you don't have transitional housing lined up for tenants who will be displaced.

People love to talk about the burden of NYCHA repairs, but no one wants to talk about the increased burden on shelters and social services if thousands of public housing residents no longer have access to stable housing.

15

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1vzbfv wrote

Demolishing the worst NYCHA buildings will likely have a long term positive affect on the lives of people currently there. Other major cities like Chicago have already done this.

This study on the outcomes of children displaced by the demolition of the Robert Taylor houses shows that moving away from these places has improved their outcomes in life.

The city has put these people in this situation, it should pay to move them out and to better housing through vouchers as is noted in the study of Chicago.

4

elizabeth-cooper t1_j1w5y6o wrote

That article says they relocated to better neighborhoods, but not all NYCHA buildings are in bad neighborhoods currently, not to mention you're talking about demolishing the entire NYCHA. CHA only demolished their 17 high rises with 14,000 residents. NYCHA has 300+ projects with 300,000+ residents. There is no possible way that NYC could absorb that many people into private housing being paid for by Section 8 vouchers or the like.

8

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1w81gv wrote

> That article says they relocated to better neighborhoods, but not all NYCHA buildings are in bad neighborhoods currently

Sure they aren't all in bad neighborhoods, but none of them are nice places to live. Cabrini-Green sat just a few blocks from the Gold Coast and other nice lakefront neighborhoods and was less than a mile from the loop.

Look at the projects in Chelsea or the Gowanus Houses—both located next to some of the most expensive real estate in the city—and yet they have high crime and are plagued with problems. Much like New York at large, it is possible to live in a nice area and yet be in squalor.

> you're talking about demolishing the entire NYCHA...There is no possible way that NYC could absorb that many people into private housing

I'm not saying demolish all at once. This would definitely be a huge undertaking and take years if not decades to do.

Lastly, just because it is a huge change doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. No human should be forced to live in the conditions NYCHA subjects thousands to and we should be demanding the city, state, and federal government takes action to move these people to better housing.

2

elizabeth-cooper t1_j1w98u3 wrote

The kind of housing they could afford, even with vouchers, doesn't exist, will never exist in these numbers. And the kind of buildings that do accept vouchers tend to be run by slumlords no better than NYCHA.

8

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1wbz8p wrote

Do you have sources for any of these claims?

According to this report from February 2022 1.9% of all available NYCHA units are vacant, representing about 3.6K vacant apartments.

That number is several hundred larger than the Queensbridge Houses, the largest NYCHA complex and largest public housing complex in North America.

So again, it would have to be a slow process and very well planned and executed, but even a basic amount of research shows this isn't impossible.

2

elizabeth-cooper t1_j1wc943 wrote

None of those are affordable housing and/or accepts housing vouchers or they wouldn't be vacant.

2

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1wckex wrote

They are literally vacant NYCHA units, but thank you for letting me know you didn't read any of my sources and have yet to produce your own.

1

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j1vygo1 wrote

That’s one article. Look up historic crime rates in NYCHA. Talk to NYCHa residents who have lived there for 50+ years (I know scores). It was absolutely nicer

1

Flatbush_Zombie t1_j1vzl5j wrote

Here's another article talking about the history of NYCHA that even includes interviews with people who lived there talking about how it became bad in the 80s. According to the article, in that decade you were more likely to be a victim of crime as a resident than someone who didn't live in NYCHA. Do you have a source?

4

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j1w1xpb wrote

Yes, things got much worse in the 80's, but again even in the early 80's it wasn't what it was today, where the crime rate is demonstrably higher.

1